F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[rjmaz1]

Costs to soar as US Air Force cuts order

THE FEDERAL Government's $20 billion program to replace its ageing fighter jets is facing a cost blow-out after the US Air Force revealed it would cut its purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by more than half.

The budget bill sent this week to Congress by the US President, George Bush, shows that the US Air Force will reduce its purchases from 110 to 48 a year.

Cutting the production run this much will cause the cost of each Joint Strike Fighter to rise substantially.........

full artical found here..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...orce-cuts-order/2007/02/07/1170524164306.html


I said long ago the USAF will cut orders. I also said that they will not reach 2000 aircraft let alone the 3000+ they hope for. It seems i am now correct.

Like i said many times.. the US cannot afford a second generation fighter, the death spiral has begun...

There will never be a set decision where its "go" or "no go"... The USAF are just going to build both and try and pull money out of their ass

Its highly likely that F-22 production will just keep running well past its current order. The reasons are simple. The USAF has cut it order of F-22 so the price has sky rocketed. Parts of the development cost is integrated into the purchase price of the F-22. The more aircraft you buy the less development cost per aircraft. The current F-22 costs more than double or even tripple the cost of a full scale production F-35, quite expensive. However when the current F-22 order is finnishedadditional F-22's will be MUCH cheaper, probably half the price that the US are currently paying for its F-22's.

The current F-22 order will run out at the same time the JSF hits full production. The USAF will have the option of buying a JSF for 100 million or a F-22 for 150 million. The choice will be easy for the USAF and F-22 production will stay open. The USAF will then allocate most of its F-35 slots to international customers so they can get their aircraft quicker.

It seems i was spot on.. the USAF has picked the F-22 in favour of the JSF. Now lets wait until F-22 production stays open

 

[Grand Danois]

full artical found here..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...orce-cuts-order/2007/02/07/1170524164306.html

That is the implementation of this? If so, then it is a minor issue affecting early lots.

Recent news on the JSF program, some good, some not so good. IN relation to the "bad" news however is that no ACTUAL commitment to reducing buys between 09-13. Overall I'd have to agree with the Deputy Defence Secretary that this IS good news for the program. Any time a defence organisation is directed AND funded to buy MORE of a capabiltiy than they wish, is a "turn up for the books"...

Posted on Thu, Jan. 04, 2007
Cutback on F-35 in 2008 rejected

Services can buy fewer fighters between 2009-13.
By Tony Capaccio
BLOOMBERG NEWS

The Defense Department vetoed Navy and Air Force plans to cut the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 joint strike fighters they would buy next year.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered the services to add $1.8 billion to their fiscal 2008 budgets. He told the Air Force to buy six fighters instead of four and the Navy, which proposed to buy no fighters in 2008, to buy six. At the same time, he agreed to let both services buy fewer aircraft than planned between 2009 and 2013.

England's orders, relayed to the service secretaries in a 60-page memo last month, reflect a desire to support the F-35, an international project and the Pentagon's largest weapons program, while still paying extraordinary costs associated with the Iraq and Afghan conflicts and meeting the Navy's commitment to increase the fleet, analysts said.

"England's decision amounts to putting his finger in the F- 35 dike," because both the Navy and Air Force are indicating "waning" support in the face of these other demands, said Thomas Ehrhard, a military-aircraft analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.

Both services also may be asked to help fund the cost of increasing the size of the Army, an initiative Bush ordered last month, Ehrhard said.

The F-35's estimated $276 billion price tag "represents a huge chunk" of future spending, "but so far, nobody at the top is willing to pull the plug," Ehrhard said.

Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to comment on the decision except to say that the Pentagon's leaders and "our allies are committed to this important program."

England's "Program Decision Memorandum," signed Dec. 13, is one of four directives sent to the military service secretaries, chiefs of staff and Pentagon acquisition officials that spell out spending priorities through fiscal 2013 for space, aircraft, special operations, healthcare and defense intelligence programs.

John Kent, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, said the F-35 program continues to head in the right direction.

"We're not going to conclude anything yet, but certainly this is good news on the surface," Kent said in an interview with the Star-Telegram. The F-35 had its first test flight last month.

"We're very excited to see the program move to the next level with all these new developments," he said.

The Pentagon estimates that it will spend about $231 billion over the next 20 years buying aircraft. Congress through last year has approved about $31 billion for the F-35, mostly for development.

The F-35 Lightning II is designed to be a short-range fighter that's almost invisible to radar and is capable of supporting ground troops. The program, as conceived in late 1996, envisioned the U.S. military buying 2,978 planes, including 10 for development testing. The number was reduced to 2,852 aircraft in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and today stands at 2,458, including 15 for development testing.

The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 planes, a number that's held since 1997. The Navy and Marines would buy 680; they originally planned to buy 1,089, but the Navy cut this number in 2002 when the Navy and Marine Corps fighter squadrons were consolidated.

Additionally, the United Kingdom is buying 138 planes, and Italy may buy as many as 131. Turkey and Austra- lia plan to buy 100 each, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Norway and Denmark 48 each.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based research institute, said the Navy is convinced that it can't afford all the aircraft it now plans to buy and still meet its commitment to increase the fleet by almost 30 ships by 2020.

Navy and Marine Corps officials "do not see eye-to-eye on the program," Thompson said. "Senior admirals oppose buying the Marine variant" that can take off on short fields and the smaller decks of amphibious warfare vessels, while Marine leaders question the value of the Navy version that requires the large deck of a traditional aircraft carrier, Thompson said.

Richard Aboulafia, a military-aircraft market analyst with the Teal Group in Alexandria, Va., was more sanguine about the program's prospects. The purchasing delays that England approved could be restored, and the original Navy and Air Force production schedules were too ambitious anyway, he said.

"The real budget danger was short term, so restoring the 2008 funding is good news," Aboulafia said. The production schedule "was always aggressive, but the new schedule looks realistic," he said.

England, former president of Lockheed's aircraft operations in Fort Worth, where the company is making the F-35, seemed to acknowledge in his memo the need to slow the program, directing the armed forces to adjust their budgets to "fund the development program properly."

Although the F-35 is more stealthy than the Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F that's now the centerpiece of naval aviation, "the Navy seems content" with this plane and may not be in a rush to buy the new one, Ehrhard said.

About 4,000 people work on the F-35 program at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant.

Staff writer David Wethe contributed to this report.

Interesting comment from Mr. Goon, btw:

Peter Goon, co-founder of the organisation Air Power Australia and a long-time critic of the project, said the US Air Force would buy about 760 planes, compared with the 1763 originally planned.

"This reduction in numbers is so large it will affect overall program costs significantly," Mr Goon said.

 

[swerve]

The Australian has two articles proclaiming the apparent imminent decision by the RAAF to purchase some Shornets

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21187027-31477,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21190098-31477,00.html

One article makes mention of the fact that the deal is worth US 3.1 billion, (including some spares).
That works out at roughly 129 million USD each.
That's not that far short of a Raptor isn't it?

rb

Here we go again . . .

Combat aircraft prices are quoted on many different bases. One oft-quoted is "flyaway" price, which is the ex-factory cost of a bare aircraft. But it costs far more to get a functioning aircraft into service. The US military talks of UPC - i.e. what they actually pay to add another aircraft to their forces, including ancillary equipment. For the F-22 that, as Grand Danois says, is about $168 million at the moment. But that's the marginal cost of number whatever on the contract, assuming you've already paid the basic upfront costs (& doesn't include weapons). If you start from scratch, training pilots, ground crew, establishing infrastructure, it'll cost you more. The extras aren't a fixed amount per aircraft: there's a minimum quantity, & a gradually decreasing marginal cost per extra unit. For a small number such as the proposed Australian F-18E deal, the unit cost of the extras is quite high.

Let us imagine Australia decided to buy a couple of dozen F-22s, & the USA agreed to sell them. Unless the Yanks decided to subsidise the deal, the contract price would be somewhere north of $200 mn per aircraft (probably at least $250 mn), excluding any weapons.

From published official US data, I reckon an F-22 costs twice as much as an F-18E. And while $129 mn per sounds pricey (S. Korea & Singapore are paying less for F-15s), it's a hell of a lot less than it would cost the USA to provide F-22s, let alone what they'd charge for them. If that price includes through-life support, I reckon it could be about right.

 

[Grand Danois]

as Grand Danois says, is about $168 million at the moment.

To be precise, it is for lot 9. USAF is currently taking delivery of lot 7 at something like 174-178 M$ UPC. I was thinking in terms of how low it would get with the current production run - presenting numbers in favour of the Raptor crowd.

But where did Mr. Goon get the "cut" numbers from? Did he extrapolate adjustments to the small early LRIP lots into the entire programme?

 

[swerve]

"...The Pentagon told the US Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 of the upgraded Hornets in a deal worth $US3.1 billion ($4 billion). The package includes the aircraft, 48 engines, radars, guided missile launchers and other military equipment..."

If you wanted to break down a Raptor's cost you could quote it as UPC (unit production cost?) plus radar, plus...

I'd have thought the UPC should include the radar and maybe a few other things, but these things are obviously considered as extras.

Is there such a thing as UFC, (unit flyaway cost)?
Anyone got any numbers on how much a Raptor might cost UFC vs Shornet? I'm presuming that the proposed Shornet deal is in 2007 $ whereas any possible Raptor pricing would be in 2008/9 $

In US military usage UPC (Unit Procurement Cost) is the cost of buying each aircraft, fully equipped, plus all costs directly attributable to that purchase, including extra spares needed as a result of it (e.g. if you need to add one to your stock of spare engines, I think that's added it). It isn't a fixed unit price: two successive aircraft can have significantly different UPCs. So there's APUC - Average PUC - to spread those across the total buy, or sections of it.

Note that APUC is not the same as PUAC, Program(me) Unit Acquisition Cost, which includes fixed costs associated with the purchase, such as development & infrastructure, divided by the total number bought.

For Australia, the F-18E is a new type, so would incur some costs not included in UPC, such as aircrew & ground crew training. The contract price also probably includes payments to Boeing for support.

None of this applies to the terminology used by any other country. Nor does it cover differences in quoted price caused by different accounting conventions (e.g. Austrias Eurofighter price includes a notional interest charge, although AFAIK no money has been borrowed specifically for the purchase, as their practice is to apportion interest on general government debt between all capital spending).

General principle: be very, very careful making comparisons between quoted prices of miitary equipment.

 

[Grand Danois]

"US rules out deal on F-22

* Cameron Stewart
* February 14, 2007

AUSTRALIA's largest defence project, the $15 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is now almost certain to go ahead after the US formally ruled out the only viable alternative warplane for the RAAF.

The US Deputy Defence Secretary, Gordon England, has written to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson saying the US will not export the world's most deadly warplane - the F-22 Raptor - to Australia.

The US statement ends a growing debate among defence experts about which plane should replace the RAAF's ageing F-111 strike bombers and form the front line of the nation's future air force.

It makes it virtually certain that Canberra will agree to formalise the acquisition of up to 100 F-35s when a final decision is due next year.

At more than $15 billion, the F-35 fleet will be the single largest purchase of any kind by an Australian government since Federation.

The yet-to-be-completed F-35 has been plagued by cost overruns and delays, but it has retained the solid support of both the RAAF and Dr Nelson, who says it is easily the best, most cost-effective option for Australia's strategic requirements.

However, the Labor Party and some defence experts had been calling for the RAAF to buy the F-22, which is the world's most lethal fighter but also the most expensive at around $170 million each - more than double the projected cost of the F-35.

A study of Australia's air power released yesterday by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute recommended that the Government seriously investigate the purchase of the F-22.

"The fifth-generation F-22 Raptor is the world's best fighter - its stealth and performance put it well ahead of the pack," the ASPI report says.

Although the US has never exported the F-22, Labor and some defence experts believed the US might relax its restrictions with a close ally such as Australia.

Dr Nelson discussed the range of warplane options with senior Bush administration officials during the annual Ausmin defence talks in Washington in December.

But in a letter to Dr Nelson last month, Mr England clarified US policy once and for all.

"Regarding the F-22, our current position is that the airplane will not be made available to foreign military sales," Mr England wrote.

The statement means Australia will have little choice but to hope that the F-35 is delivered on time and on budget with all of its promised capabilities.

The first F-35s are due to be delivered to the RAAF by 2014. Although the planes have suffered serious problems with weight and with software integration during their design, the first test-flight in December was a success and the RAAF believes the F-35 will be a potent warplane capable of matching anything in the region.

However, the price of the F-35s - currently estimated at around $70million each - is likely to rise further after the US air force recently reduced its orders for the plane, driving up the cost for other customers such as Australia.

The US statement on the F-22 reflects a continuing reluctance by the US to export cutting-edge stealth technology, even to its closest allies.

Both Australia and Britain have clashed with the US over access to stealth technology for the F-35.

The Pentagon plans to buy about 2500 of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35s and sell the plane to nine partner countries, including Australia.

In March last year, Australia threatened to pull put of the F-35 deal if the Australian version of the plane did not have the same sophisticated stealth technology as the US F-35s.

But in meetings in June between Dr Nelson and then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Dr Nelson said he was "confident that all of our requirements will be met on the (F-35) JSF - the technology and data transfer".

Britain has also threatened to pull out of the F-35 project if the US does not share its stealth technology.

The F-22 and the F-35 are the world's only so-called fifth-generation aircraft, giving them high levels of stealth against enemy radar and infrared detection systems.

They also have highly sophisticated sensor systems allowing them to collect, process and share real-time battle data.

The Government has said it wants to replace the 1960s-era F-111s with a fifth-generation warplane rather than fourth-generation options currently in service around the world.

The Government has recently signalled its intention to buy or lease 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters from the US, to ensure there is no gap in air combat capability between the retirement of the F-111 from 2010 and the arrival of the F-35 from 2014."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21223310-601,00.html

 

[Tasman]

"US rules out deal on F-22

* Cameron Stewart
* February 14, 2007

AUSTRALIA's largest defence project, the $15 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is now almost certain to go ahead after the US formally ruled out the only viable alternative warplane for the RAAF.

The US Deputy Defence Secretary, Gordon England, has written to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson saying the US will not export the world's most deadly warplane - the F-22 Raptor - to Australia.

...

However, the Labor Party and some defence experts had been calling for the RAAF to buy the F-22, which is the world's most lethal fighter but also the most expensive at around $170 million each - more than double the projected cost of the F-35.

A study of Australia's air power released yesterday by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute recommended that the Government seriously investigate the purchase of the F-22.

"The fifth-generation F-22 Raptor is the world's best fighter - its stealth and performance put it well ahead of the pack," the ASPI report says.

Although the US has never exported the F-22, Labor and some defence experts believed the US might relax its restrictions with a close ally such as Australia.

Dr Nelson discussed the range of warplane options with senior Bush administration officials during the annual Ausmin defence talks in Washington in December.

But in a letter to Dr Nelson last month, Mr England clarified US policy once and for all.

"Regarding the F-22, our current position is that the airplane will not be made available to foreign military sales," Mr England wrote.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21223310-601,00.html

Interesting post Grand Danois. This seems to confirm what Big E and others have been saying for some time. I'm pleased though that the Defence Minister 'tested the waters' and discussed the issue with the the Bush Administration. Hopefully the RAAF will now be able to get on with finalising an F35 as well as (probably) an FA18F deal as it restructures its air combat force for the future.

Cheers

 

[phreeky]

Sorry for going a little off-topic here, but regarding the unwillingness of the US to share certain technologies, is there are technologies that Australia has ever refused to share with the US or are likely not to share? Has Australia not done enough to use possible technology sharing as leverage to gain access to things such as the F-22?

Is it also possible that the unwillingness to supply the F-22 to Australia is a method of ensuring it sticks with the F-35 project?

Btw I understand there is a lot more for the US to share to Aus than in reverse, but I just feel that when the US is involved Aus always seems to be able to be "bought out" (i.e. if you fund project x with $y, you can have in) in terms of technologies.

 

[Tasman]

Sorry for going a little off-topic here, but regarding the unwillingness of the US to share certain technologies, is there are technologies that Australia has ever refused to share with the US or are likely not to share? Has Australia not done enough to use possible technology sharing as leverage to gain access to things such as the F-22?

I'm no expert in this area but as you've suggested my guess is that Australia would have far less to share with the USA than the other way around.

Is it also possible that the unwillingness to supply the F-22 to Australia is a method of ensuring it sticks with the F-35 project?

There certainly is a lot riding on foreign buyers for the F35, so maybe this could be one reason but I suspect that the US wants to ensure that it maintains qualitative advantages over everyone else (including its allies). At this stage the US has not made the F22 available to any other country. If it did, and refused it to Australia, then I'd be pretty annoyed. I think though that Australia has generally been very well looked after by the US when it has come to making advanced weapons systems available. The F111 in the 1960s and AEGIS more recently are just a couple of examples that come to mind.

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

Sorry for going a little off-topic here, but regarding the unwillingness of the US to share certain technologies, is there are technologies that Australia has ever refused to share with the US or are likely not to share? Has Australia not done enough to use possible technology sharing as leverage to gain access to things such as the F-22?

Is it also possible that the unwillingness to supply the F-22 to Australia is a method of ensuring it sticks with the F-35 project?

Btw I understand there is a lot more for the US to share to Aus than in reverse, but I just feel that when the US is involved Aus always seems to be able to be "bought out" (i.e. if you fund project x with $y, you can have in) in terms of technologies.

There's sharing technology and then there's selling technology.
I'm sure a certain resident here could add something on that particular topic especially in regards submarine accoustic technologies developed within Australia.
Then there's CEA FAR, JORN and probably a few others that I know nothing about. The trouble is with some of those technologies, the yanks would probably end up developing solutions themselves anyway. With regards to 5th generation strike aircraft - Australia is never going to design and build its own.

rb

 

[phreeky]

There's sharing technology and then there's selling technology.
I'm sure a certain resident here could add something on that particular topic especially in regards submarine accoustic technologies developed within Australia.
Then there's CEA FAR, JORN and probably a few others that I know nothing about. The trouble is with some of those technologies, the yanks would probably end up developing solutions themselves anyway. With regards to 5th generation strike aircraft - Australia is never going to design and build its own.

rb

Understood, however I suppose you can always say "somebody will eventually create their own anyway" (maybe not Australia, and maybe not in the same sort of timeframe) - but for that period, until the US had created its own, Australia would be the only one in posession of said technology.

I, and others like myself with no inside knowledge really don't have a grasp on the true situation, but I cannot help but suspect that Australia would not resist sharing any technology with the US - and if "we" did I imagine we wouldn't be the most popular of allies. It seems a little odd that the same is not done in return. Or maybe I'm just looking into it too much?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm no expert in this area but as you've suggested my guess is that Australia would have far less to share with the USA than the other way around.



There certainly is a lot riding on foreign buyers for the F35, so maybe this could be one reason but I suspect that the US wants to ensure that it maintains qualitative advantages over everyone else (including its allies). At this stage the US has not made the F22 available to any other country. If it did, and refused it to Australia, then I'd be pretty annoyed. I think though that Australia has generally been very well looked after by the US when it has come to making advanced weapons systems available. The F111 in the 1960s and AEGIS more recently are just a couple of examples that come to mind.

Cheers

JASSM missiles is another example of technology along these lines. The USA has just refused to supply this weapon to Finland, however have allowed us to acquire them.

I have read that Gordan ENGLAND (US Deputy Secretary of Defence) has written personally to Defmin NELSON stating that the USA will NOT sell the F-22 to Australia, thus if not ending this debate, at least moving it firmly into the "what if" (or rather "red herring" IMHO) category here:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg....1143271985.RCTyMcOa9dUAABjYSCE&modele=jdc_34


Defmin NELSON has also repeatedly stated this publicly and in press releases recently, which I doubt he would if the reverse were true. Air Marshall Angus HOUSTON has also testified at the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade TODAY, that the F-22 is unavailable and Defmin NELSON HAS received written advice from DepSec ENGLAND that this IS the case.

Thus the current public "debate" is worse than useless in my opinion. Discussing a capability we CANNOT have is futile. We might as well discuss whether or not RAAF should acquire "X Wing" Star Wars fighters!!!

These "experts" should rather turn their respective intellects into discussing ways of REALISTICALLY improving Australian defence capability, than opining about how badly the Liberal Government is handling the situation, again IMHO.

 

[Magoo]

JASSM missiles is another example of technology along these lines. The USA has just refused to supply this weapon to Finland, however have allowed us to acquire them.

I have read that Gordan ENGLAND (US Deputy Secretary of Defence) has written personally to Defmin NELSON stating that the USA will NOT sell the F-22 to Australia, thus if not ending this debate, at least moving it firmly into the "what if" (or rather "red herring" IMHO) category here:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg....1143271985.RCTyMcOa9dUAABjYSCE&modele=jdc_34


Defmin NELSON has also repeatedly stated this publicly and in press releases recently, which I doubt he would if the reverse were true. Air Marshall Angus HOUSTON has also testified at the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade TODAY, that the F-22 is unavailable and Defmin NELSON HAS received written advice from DepSec ENGLAND that this IS the case.

Thus the current public "debate" is worse than useless in my opinion. Discussing a capability we CANNOT have is futile. We might as well discuss whether or not RAAF should acquire "X Wing" Star Wars fighters!!!

These "experts" should rather turn their respective intellects into discussing ways of REALISTICALLY improving Australian defence capability, than opining about how badly the Liberal Government is handling the situation, again IMHO.

What the Minister needs to explain now is, as he said in a media release directed at the Shadow Minister yesterday...

Contrary to Mr Fitzgibbon’s claim, the Government has not asked the United States for access to the F-22 Raptor.

...if this is the case, why then would the US Dep DefSec need to write such a letter???

It all smells VERY fishy to me!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Grand Danois]

It all smells VERY fishy to me!

I had the same thought. To quote the ASPI doc that has just been released:

As well, there is another alternative. That is, if the F-22 is still considered too expensive, or is unavailable for export after a formal request is made, we could fall back to a fourth generation option that is selected from the world market as the most cost-effective aircraft. South Korea's F-15 fleet will cost approximately the same per aircraft as our proposed Super Hornet buy.

It is politically convenient not make a formal request as it could suggest a requirement. So interesting timing from US Dept SecDef wrt to the Aust debate on platform choice.

 

[Tasman]

JASSM missiles is another example of technology along these lines. The USA has just refused to supply this weapon to Finland, however have allowed us to acquire them.

I have read that Gordan ENGLAND (US Deputy Secretary of Defence) has written personally to Defmin NELSON stating that the USA will NOT sell the F-22 to Australia, thus if not ending this debate, at least moving it firmly into the "what if" (or rather "red herring" IMHO) category here:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg....1143271985.RCTyMcOa9dUAABjYSCE&modele=jdc_34


Defmin NELSON has also repeatedly stated this publicly and in press releases recently, which I doubt he would if the reverse were true. Air Marshall Angus HOUSTON has also testified at the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade TODAY, that the F-22 is unavailable and Defmin NELSON HAS received written advice from DepSec ENGLAND that this IS the case.

Thus the current public "debate" is worse than useless in my opinion. Discussing a capability we CANNOT have is futile. We might as well discuss whether or not RAAF should acquire "X Wing" Star Wars fighters!!!

These "experts" should rather turn their respective intellects into discussing ways of REALISTICALLY improving Australian defence capability, than opining about how badly the Liberal Government is handling the situation, again IMHO.

I agree that we ought to be moving forward and it is a worry that a group like The Australian Strategic Policy Institute still seems to be pushing for the F22 and suggests that Australia should take no action re a stop gap aircraft (i.e. the SH), other than to undertake further feasibility studies, for up to 12 months. I think delaying this decision could risk making a purchase of FA18Fs or any other aircraft too late to fill the capability gap that it now seems is almost certain to arise. Surely it’s better to get the best available when it is needed rather than an aircraft which may prove slightly better but which will be delivered too late to do the job.

Let's get the FA18Fs whilst they are available and undertake feasibility studies into alternatives should the F35 fail.

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/policybrief.aspx?ContentID=115&pubtype=9

Cheers

 

[phreeky]

I hate to bring politics into it, but we all know how tied up it is with the military (naturally) - if an opposition party is saying "we'll get F-22s" sort of stuff, one countries government can do another countries a favour and write them a letter Could always do a "trade" with them and state you don't believe pulling forces out of a conflict, as suggested by an opposing government, is a good idea

Of course whether it's true or not there's no way I'll argue it, however I'm just throwing up the possibility that the reason for the letter may well be anything but it being requested. As stated, it'd be a bit hard to go asking for them after you've been telling everybody they're not needed.

 

[Magoo]

I hate to bring politics into it, but we all know how tied up it is with the military (naturally) - if an opposition party is saying "we'll get F-22s" sort of stuff, one countries government can do another countries a favour and write them a letter Could always do a "trade" with them and state you don't believe pulling forces out of a conflict, as suggested by an opposing government, is a good idea

Of course whether it's true or not there's no way I'll argue it, however I'm just throwing up the possibility that the reason for the letter may well be anything but it being requested. As stated, it'd be a bit hard to go asking for them after you've been telling everybody they're not needed.

Unfortunately, everyone seems to be more interested in WHO is right, rather that WHAT is right!

The RIGHT thing to do would be to have an open debate on the F-22 option, one that shows an honest cost estimate of what an appropriate sized force of the jets would cost, an unclassified analysis of why it isn't deemed a suitable aircraft, and an admission of whether or not the actual question of availability has been asked.

However, I doubt this will happen...

Cheers

Magoo

 

[swerve]

....if this is the case, why then would the US Dep DefSec need to write such a letter

In response to informal queries, to make it clear there's no point putting in a formal request & being embarassed by a formal refusal. Pretty normal diplomatic stuff.

 

[swerve]

...The RIGHT thing to do would be to have an open debate on the F-22 option, one that shows an honest cost estimate of what an appropriate sized force of the jets would cost, an unclassified analysis of why it isn't deemed a suitable aircraft, and an admission of whether or not the actual question of availability has been asked.

However, I doubt this will happen...

Cheers

Magoo

Because, as Aussie Digger has already been said, there's no point.

We're getting into equine necrophilia - with whips - here.

 

[W800i]

I think it would of been more helpful to say flogging a dead horse, but there you go.
I think Magoo is on to something. Ask them. However asking the Americans before we signed up for the latest JSF development contract would of been a little more persuasive I think. Gordon England is not going to agree to sell us a aircraft that is going to take sales away from there single biggest defence spend is he! If the Americans are worried about third parties learning the secrets of the Raptor I think it almost a foregone conclusion that a leak would come from within there own camp. I am as confident as an outsider can be that the very tight lipped RAAF could of adequately secured the Raptor and will continue to do their already thorough job at maintaing secrecy at any rate. Its one of the reaons the RAAF are letting this debate get out of control. Things have changed. Spending money on the scale they have been is no longer an issue soley for the RAAF and the beaurecrats to debate behind closed doors. The RAAF and defence generally are going to have to in my view engage to a much higher degree than they are used to or comfortable with. There is a new paradigm. Its called the net.

So Gordon Englands letter is a political statement for his mates down under. There there all you misinformed drop kicks in good old aus whom are just a little concerned as to how the JSF programme is running, we wont sell the Raptor to you so your committed to the JSF. So Carlo and his minnions just shut up.

Its amazing. Keep this in mind gentleman. The JSF spend will be the single largest federal govenment project spend in our great countries history. If that doesnt give me or anyone else with the time, interest and broad band connection the responsibility to bring themselves up to a level of knowledge re this project and at least make intelligent comment on it I dont know what does.

And as a non technical, non uniformed, non technicrat net junkie, heres what Ive learnt
(1) Every major procurement delay or problem that defence has run into since computers began appearing in military hardware has usually involved software. As the CDF quite rightly pointed out recently, software development is an issue for the ADF, DMO and everyone else in the world. The JSF will have an even more complex and larger software codex than the raptor. The yanks took the best part of ten years to de bug the raptor losing several air frames in crashes due to these bugs. Can someone explain to me how the JSF will be any different? We are buying in way to early. If one of the outcomes of buying the SH is that we delay getting the JSF than that is a bonus in my view. It will give the yanks more time to sort out the normal and understandable bugs that hyper complex fighter bombers have become. It will also hopefully mean we wont have a flightline of shiny new JSF's that look impressive but only have basic functions which are incrementally improved with new software tranches. Beholden to a contrractor in LM whose track record for customer support with the introduction of the J model herky bird left alot to be desired according to the Australian Aviation article I read. This also is another good reason to be cautious.
(2) Why was the original Air 6000 team not allowed to finish there job. They are the experts. If the RAAF after completing this process put there hand on their heart and stated that nothing else would fill there needs then their argument would have more credibility in my view. It was circumvented. For what reason? Keep in the mind that the current CDF, a man whom has flown over 5000 hours on Blackhawks and is in charge of this nations magnificent men and women in uniform has stated words to the effect that any Australian fighter pilot would give his right testicle to fly the raptor. Its the finest air dominance fighter in the world. Why on gods earth wouldnt we ask if it were available.
(3) According to defence even up until late last year, no air capability gap would appear needing an interim type to plug. Yet one is now apparently going to be acquired. There is a credibility problem here gents. Why after years of being warned of the dangers of exactly this problem occurring, we were advised that it would not happen and guess what its happening.
(4) The justifications for retiring the F-111 were as follows
- stand off weapon to be fitted to the Orion fleet. Dropped. Thank god I say
- fully integrated wedgetail capability-3 years late (not surprisingly really and well worth the wait, but why oh why put such a tight planning structure around its on time delivery
-A330 tankers- Running a little late. New boom system and first of type usual issues for quite a complex and extensive job. I hope they go with the cargo conversion once airbus gets that running.
-Hugged hornets. New radar, displays, new cuieng helmet (see and shoot) and other nicities( radios etc.). Out of league here but problems with the Missile warning receiver which I understand is essentially the most important box on board a fighter. Dumping of the local effort for a off the shelf yank unit.
- centre barrell. The RAAF have never stripped back there Hornets to nothing and understandably dont really know what their going to find. How many known unknowns are there to catch phrase one of the justifications for killing the pig. How many will need a new barrell and how long will this job take for each aircraft. Was Kopp correct in stating at least a year per airframe?
So I am sincerely sorry for the length of this reply. I apologise. I really enjoy reading this forum and hope I am welcome to continue debating and learning from the forum members.